Paley’s other watch

In his book Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, first published in 1802, William Paley wrote

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had given before, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible? When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive—what we could not discover in the stone—that its parts are framed and have been put together.
We notice more: we find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to, each other, conducting the motion to the balance and from the balance to the pointer. Further, we notice that the wheels are made of brass to prevent rust; the springs of steel (no other metal being so elastic); that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, and without which the hour could not been seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed, the inference, we think is inevitable: the watch must have had a maker, and been designed for a purpose.

Paley’s question was, “Does the watch have an intelligent designer?”

My question is, “Does the watch belong to someone?”

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

10 thoughts on “Paley’s other watch”

  1. Paley’s arguement is irrefutable, and testifies to the scripture “For the invisible things of him [God] from the Creation of the world is God clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…” (Rom 1vs20) and also “The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14vs1).
    Dawkins is such a complete Fool… while admitting “Biology is the study of complicated things wich appear to be designed for a purpose” none the less to avoid the rationality of that belief in God being derived from such scientific study… he attempts to atribute the design in Biology to ‘A blind watchmaker’. According to Dawkins if you find a watch… it is ‘clever’ to atribute it to ‘blind natural forces’. He actually believes something far more difficult happens naturally… the spontanious generation of Life!

  2. He actually believes something far more difficult happens naturally… the spontanious generation of Life!

    Excellent point, Tim. Ask yourself, what kind of intelligence would it take to create life as we know it? And then ask yourself, what kind of intelligence would it take to create a primordial soup which, left to itself for billions of years, gives rise to life as we know it?

  3. But never mind Paley’s watch. I’m talking about Paley’s other watch!

    … the inference, we think is inevitable: the watch must belong to someone.

    Must it belong to someone?

  4. So Tim Wikiriwhi you find it utterly incredible that something as complex as a bacteria might not have been designed and therefore might not have a designer. But you’re fine with the infinitely more complex God not having a designer?

  5. Lets focus on the science Michael, and what we know about watches, rather than pondering such abstruse subjects as The Necessary Uncreated Infinite Living Super Natural Being.
    It’s laughable that Atheists like Dawkins think they can ignore scientific reality by such a sidestep as you propose… Iike pulling a 5th ace from your sleeve.
    ‘Who made God’ is really a childish question’.
    You Materialists claim ‘science’ is on ‘your side’, and yet by science we know of no other means of a Watch ( or any complex mechanisms) coming from chaos into order, without Intelligent design. Why? The Universe does not function like that! Compounds, Gravity, heat, light, etc are impotent blind natural forces, that can only rust a watch back into a state of chaos…. never create a Watch…. and absolutely never spontaneously generate life… and that is the absolute ‘State of the art’ of Modern scientific truth!
    And from this we must contemplate *Who* designed us.
    This is a question science proposes…

  6. Most complicated Patek Philippe wristwatch:- 1.366 movement components;- Double face reversible case;- 214 case components;- 7 years of Development;- 2 years of Production;- 5 Chimes;- 3 Gongs;- Total of 6 patented inventions!Join Us Impressive and Interesting Things

    Posted by Impressive and Interesting Things on Thursday, December 31, 2015

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *